A discussion analyzing the correctness of 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem and its relevance to 1914 CE, according to Biblical and Historic evidence

Forum rules
“Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)

You saidDid you even look at the original Hebrew in both Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 25:11? If you did you would not have to ask this question. Look again, and remember, Hebrew is read from right to left, Right in front the word for "fulfilled" you see the KEC, the backward capital C. This is the same prefix that occurs in Daniel 5:31. Please look and see. All you are dealing with is the root word and that is not going to help you see the point. Go look at the text itself in the Hebrew. You will see that same prefix occurs in both places and if it can mean ABOUT in one, it would simpy be blindness to claim it CAN'T mean that in the other. The very fact that numerous translators have recognized that it can mean ABOUT, proves that it can mean it at Jeremiah 25:11.

And since many translators acknowledge that it can mean ABOUT in Daniel, then it is the same thing as acknowledging that it can carry that meaning at Jeremiah 25:11 whether they chose to render it that way or not. (WHO DOES?)###############################################

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++CAN YOU SHOW THE MEANING OF KEC IN HEBREW? If translators have recognized that it can mean about, why did some put it in Daniel 5:31, but all of them failed to put it in Jeremiah? Oh, I guess another mistake just like the Chronologists. No it is more an organization with an agenda that can only survive by twisting the word of God.

No one agrees with you so I guess we are all blind. I am tired of you imposing your view when it is clear no proof can be given, but a wild opinion.

כְּבַ֥ר Daniel 5:31 כִמְלֹ֣אות Jerimah 25:12 Different words different meanings this is the Watchtower tactic of re-interpreting words to mean something different. I am not dealing with the root word that is you, I am dealing with the entire new word, which is not the same from one verse to the next. Also, the sentence structure is different. No, it does not mean "about" the prophecy is very accurate. We can move on, because you have no case only great imagination hundreds of Hebrew Scholars do not agree with you. One word is "ke bar" and the other is "Kim lo wt". Not the same word at all no matter how you want to twist it the first letter does not define the entire word that is pretty simplistic. If that is how you interpret words wow then maybe "kiss" and "kill" means the same thing. The words don't even share the same root word what are you talking about.

Jeremiah 29:10 (NIV)

This is what the Lord says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfil my gracious promise to bring you back to this place."

It seems clear from the context in these two segments that the seventy years applies to Babylon itself, not to the period of time that the people of Judah are to spend in Babylon. In chapter 25 it says that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. Again in chapter 29, Jeremiah makes the connection to Babylon by saying that 70 years are "for Babylon".

Completed for who? The temple, Israel nope BABYLON. Does BABYLON MEANS BABYLON OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER VERSION?

So the 70 years refers to the period of Babylonian Empire. When did this start and finish? As alluded to earlier, Babylon was conquered by Cyrus II of Persia in 539 BC. So this is the finish. When was the start? For our purposes, the start would have to be when the other "nations will serve the king of Babylon" (see excerpt from Jeremiah 25 above). The major world power prior to Babylon was Assyria.

For a good overview of the decline of the Assyrian Empire refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (see article in Britannica CD 99: The History of Ancient Mesopotamia: Mesopotamia to the end of the: THE NEO-ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (746-609): Decline of the Assyrian empire). Here it describes how the Assyrian empire, after becoming weakened through civil war, fell to the combined forces of the Medes and the Babylonians, finally being extinguished in 609 BC. In this final battle, the Assyrians and the Egyptians fought side-by-side. Prior to being conquered by the Medes and Babylonians, the Egyptians fought against Judah - and Judah lost. This is the battle where Josiah was killed. The chronology of Judah places this event in 608 BC - but that is close enough to 609 BC when a 1 year margin of error is assumed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said Your problem here is that you are simply parroting the traditional view as if it is proof when that is exactly what is being called into question. You can't use as your source the very thing that is being questioned. That is called "circular reasoning" and you just made a huge circle.

There is nothing in the narrative of Jeremiah 25 that tells us that this seventy years of servitude under Babylon started with Assyria. As I have mentioned above, the "oracle against the nations" started with Jerusalem and verse 29 can corroborate that. With that view, it would mean starting with the desolation of Jerusalem, those nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. That is a completely natural reading of the verses in question, and one that the context supports.#####################################################

That is what you do by saying the 70 years have not ended in 539 BCE because the jews were still in excile. It is circular reasoning the difference with my position is that I have a tremendous amount of Archeological data to back my position as well as the Bible itself and you don't. Again, the text does not say that and history shows it was not what happened, so might be natural for you, but it is not what it says.

############################################I can't believe that you simply blew past all of those quotes from Niece/Barclay which contradict your view and you landed on the one comment that you erroneously think supports your view. That, in my opinion, is very disingenuous. The quote you offered does not in anyway overturn what Barclay repeated more than once about Berossus believing that the fall of Jerusalem was at the same event as the attack on Egypt. I hope the readers notice how you just skip over evidence like this as if it wasn't even there.########################################

I look at the immediate context of what Josephus said and give that greater credence then what Barclay might say. I have shown why his immediate context does not agree specially Berossus Kings list. I do see a contradiction in what you are trying to say. So, let move on to Archeological data and see if those Chronologists in the third Century truly made a mistake as you claim. Lets get the rhetoric out of the way and see actual Archeological, Astronomical data. I added another Stele for your review. You cannot be reading well, when you thought I thought the 70 years started in 605 BCE.

This is just more and more rhetoric unfounded by any Archeological findings, so you can try to twist a word here and there all you want.

=========================================================Long sections of all caps usually means you're yelling. There's no reason to yell. I am starting to think that you are not reading everything because you only respond to select items that I have offered and that makes for an ineffective argument from you. If you want to have success in an argument, you need to respond to everything that is offered as long as it is relevant to the topic at hand. But there are a few things that you said above that I need to address because they are inaccurate.

You will find that I do not ONLY HAVE BARCLAY as you claim. Besides, you claim yourself that you found agreement with him so he can't be all bad, right? I will be quoting from a number of different scholars along the way and primarily from scripture itself. You and those reading along will see that I do not stand alone on Barclay.

I have no problem addressing the king's list as I will demonstrate when we get to the Nabon 8 stele (Hillah) in the other thread. Patience, my friend. Patience. It is taking me a while to present my first response in that thread because there are some quotes that I have to write out myself rather than copy and paste, and unfortunately, my time is limited at the moment, but don't worry, it will come soon enough,

You claim you do not agree that he said 70 years desolation in the 19 chapter but I have shown you that is exactly what the Greek text says. The word DURING is unwarranted, so there is no ambiguity there as to what was meant. You can deny it all you want, but then you're just cherry picking, the same thing you accuse us of.=====================================================================

I ADDED A COUPLE OF MORE MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW ME HOW THEY ARE ALL WRONG ALSO WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SHOW HOW ALL THE CHRONOLOGICAL JOINTS FROM ONE KING TO THE NEXT ARE ALSO WRONG. THE BIBLE IS THE EASY PART TO SHOW IT IS NOT HOW YOU INTERPRET IT TO BE.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "I am talking about the COMPLETE king list down throughout history, both before and after this period of time. Where can that be found?################################################Have no idea what you are talking about, but we are dealing with a specific period and all known data shows them to be accurate. Not, really sure I care to know about Noah at this time. Since, you know those list are wrong why don't you give me the list.

You said : Again, you are obviously not understanding all of my argument.

For instance, No.1 I completely agree with.

No. 2 I completely agree that whoever is referred to as "these nations" would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. The question is, "How encompassing is the term "these nations""? Does it go clear back to the conquering of Assyria or does it start with the desolation and conquering of Jerusalem? There is no way to be certain from what is said in verse 9-11.

However, as I mentioned, the "oracle against the nations" which starts in verse 17 BEGINS with Jerusalem and then it is followed by a list of nations that were not subjugated until after Jerusalem fell or at least in very close proximity to its fall. Plus verse 29 makes it seem as though God said he BEGAN with his OWN city first with this SWORD that he was bringing against all the nations in that list.

No. 3 has already been dealt with. Due to that prefix it could very well read ABOUT and not just FULFILLED. You need to check this out in the lexicons and the interlinears for yourself. I see you mention this again below so I will address it further there and point out where your reasoning and your observations are faulty.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++#3 that is an unfounded opinion no one has translated it your way or found a similitude with Daniel unless it is the Watchtower gasping for Air. "It could" I think the prophecy is solid and does not allow for "it could"

This is where it has to be determined if it was Desolation or servitude—which?

I think the following information should be able to put that to rest.

Although it is predicted in the passage that the land of Judah would be a devastated place, it should be noted that this “devastation” is not equated with, or linked with, the period of the seventy years. All that is clearly and unambiguously stated in the text is that “these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years” The phrase “these nations” is a reference back to verse 9, in which it is predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would come against “this land [that is, Judah] and its inhabitants, and also against all these nations round about.”

The seventy years, then, should be understood to mean years of servitude for these nations. This conclusion is so obvious that the Watch Tower Society, at the head of page 826 of its large-print

Jehoiakim and was presented to the king a few months later (Jeremiah 36:1–32), did not contain any references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar, how then could Jehoiakim, after having listened to and burned up the roll with the prophecy, ask Jeremiah: “Why is it that you have written on it, saying: The king of Babylon will come without fail and will certainly bring this land to ruin and cause man and beast to cease from it?’ “ (Jeremiah 36:29, NW) As this same question is found both in Jer-MT and Jer-LXX, the original prophecy must have explicitly mentioned the king of Babylon. Professor Norman K. Gottwald cites this verse and says: “If the prophet had not somewhere in his scroll openly identified Babylon as the invader, the sharp retort of the king is difficult to explain.” (N. K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth. New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964, p. 251.) This strongly indicates that Jer-MT might very well represent the original text here. It should be kept in mind that LXX is a translation made hundreds of years after the time of Jeremiah from a Hebrew text that is now lost, and, as the editors of Bagster’s The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament point out in the “Introduction,” some of the translators of the LXX were not competent to their task and often inserted their own interpretations and traditions. Most scholars agree with this observation. The Watch Tower Society, too, emphasizes that “the Greek translation of this book [Jeremiah] is defective, but that does not lessen the reliability of the Hebrew text.”— Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1988, p. 32. For a thorough defense of the superiority of the MT text of Jeremiah, see Dr. Sven Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah (= Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 47), Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1985.

[u]edition of the New World Translation (1971 ed.), automatically describes the seventy years as “70 years’ servitude due.”[/u]

Yet, in their discussions of this text, Watchtower writers never point out that Jeremiah spoke of seventy years of servitude, or that this servitude related to the nations surrounding Judah. They try always to give the impression that the seventy years referred to Judah, and Judah only, and they always describe the seventy years as a period in which Judah suffered complete desolation, “without an inhabitant.” This they reckon as having happened from the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. But their application is in direct conflict with the exact wording of Jeremiah’s prediction, and it can be upheld only by ignoring what the text actually says.

”Servitude” here should not be taken to mean the same thing as desolation and exile. For the nations surrounding Judah the servitude first of all meant vassalage(bottom quote A) Although Judah, too, was subdued by Babylon, it time and again revolted and attempted to throw off the Babylonian yoke, which brought wave after wave of devastating military ravages and deportations until the country was at last desolated and depopulated after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. That such a fate was not the same thing as servitude, but would come as a punishment upon any nation that refused to serve the king of Babylon, had been clearly predicted by Jeremiah, at chapter 27, verses 7, 8, and 11:

”And all the nations must serve even him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant. ”And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “until I have finished them off by his hand.” ”And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.” (NW) From these verses it is very clear what it meant to a nation to serve the king of Babylon. It meant to accept the yoke of Babylon as a vassal and by that be spared from desolation and deportation. The servitude, therefore, was the very opposite of revolt, desolation, deportation, and exile.(QUOTE B) That is why Jeremiah warned the people against attempting to throw off the Babylonian yoke and admonished them: “Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place?” —Jeremiah 27:17, NW.

Thus, the nations that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nations that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude, interrupted by repeated rebellions. The seventy years of servitude foretold by Jeremiah, therefore, did not apply to Judah as a nation, but only to the nations who submitted to the king of Babylon. As Judah refused to submit, it had to get the punishment for this―desolation and exile―exactly as had been predicted at Jeremiah 25:11. Of course, the exiled Jews also had to perform various kinds of “service” in Babylonia. This was not the service of a vassal state, however, but the service of captured and deported slaves

A) The Hebrew word for “desolation,” chorbáh is also used in verse 18, where Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are stated to become “a desolation (chorbáh), . . . as it is today.” As Dr. J. A. Thompson remarks, “The phrase as it is today suggests that at the time of writing some aspects of this judgment, at 1east, were apparent.” (The Book of Jeremiah, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 516) The prophecy was uttered and written down in the fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . that is, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.” (Jer. 25:1; 36:1–4) But as that scroll was burned by Jehoiakim some months later, in the ninth month of his fifth year (36:9–25), another scroll had to be written. (36:32) At that time Nebuchadnezzar’s armies had already invaded and ravaged the land of Judah. At the time of writing, therefore, the phrase “as it is today” was probably added as a result of this desolation. That the word chorbáh does not necessarily imply a state of total desolation “without an inhabitant” can be seen from other texts which use the word, for example Ezekiel 33:24, 27 (”the inhabitants of these devastated places”) and at Nehemiah 2:17. During Nehemiah’s time Jerusalem was inhabited, yet the city is said to be “devastated (chorbáh).” The phrase “desolate waste, without an inhabitant” is found at Jeremiah 9:11 and 34:22. Although it refers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah it is nowhere equated with the period of seventy years. As pointed out by Professor Arthur Jeffrey in the Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 6, p. 485), chorbáh is ‘often employed to describe the state of a devastated land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Leviticus 26:31, 33; Isaiah 49:19; Jeremiah 44:22; Ezekiel 36:34; Malachi 1:4; 1 Maccabees 1:39).” It would not be inaccurate, therefore, to talk of Judah as chorbáh eighteen years prior to its depopulation, if the land had been ravaged by the army of an enemy at that time. Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and 1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97.

As brought out by any Hebrew dictionary , the Hebrew verb ‘abad, “work, serve,” could also mean to serve as a subject or vassal, e.g. by paying tribute. The corresponding noun ‘ebed, “slave, servant,” is often used of vassal states or tributary nations. In fact, the technical term for “vassal” in Hebrew was precisely ‘ebed. —See Dr. Jonas C. Greenfield, “Some aspects of Treaty Terminology in the Bible,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, Vol. I, 1967, pp. 117–119; also Dr. Ziony Zevit, “The Use of ‘ebed as a Diplomatic Term in Jeremiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, 1969, pp. 74–77.

B) The difference is noted by Dr. John Hill in his analysis of Jeremiah 25:10, 11: “In vv. 10–11 there is a twofold elaboration of the punishment announced in v. 9. The first part of the elaboration is in vv. 10–11a, which refers to the subjugation and devastation of Judah. The second part is in v. 11b which refers to the subjugation of Judah’s neighbours. Vv. 10–11 then distinguishes the fate of Judah from that of its neighbours, which is that of subjugation. Judah’s fate is to suffer the devastation of its land.”—J. Hill, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT (Brill:Leiden etc., 1999, p. 110, note 42.

Judea did become a tributary nation to Babylon in 605 BCE, but the prophecy had commenced since it was not only related to Judea and the destruction of the Temple. The destruction of the Temple was a result of them not obeying God in continuing to subjugate to Babylon.The seventy years of servitude foretold by Jeremiah, therefore, did not apply to Judah as a nation, but only to the nations who submitted to the king of Babylon. As Judah refused to submit, it had to get the punishment for this―desolation and exile―exactly as had been predicted at Jeremiah 25:11. Of course, the exiled Jews also had to perform various kinds of “service” in Babylonia. This was not the service of a vassal state, however, but the service of captured and deported slaves.

That it was servitude and not desolation can be seen that Other nations, too, who refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were desolated, and captives were brought to Babylon. For example, one of the Philistine city-states, probably Ashkelon (the name is only partly legible), was “plundered and sacked” and “turned . . . into a ruin heap,” according to the Babylonian Chronicle (B. M. 21946). This destruction, predicted by Jeremiah at Jeremiah 47:5–7, took place in the month Kislimu (9th month) of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar according to the chronicle, that is, in November, or December, 604 B.C.E. (A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley, N.Y.: J.J. Augustin Publisher, 1975, p. 100.) That Ashkelon was mined is now confirmed by excavations. In 1992, Lawrence E. Stager uncovered at Ashkelon the archaeological evidence for this Babylonian destruction.— See L. E. Stager, “The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction,” Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 22:1 (1996), pp. 56–69, 76–77.

Last edited by hperez on Sat May 03, 2014 12:45 pm, edited 22 times in total.

I will first address the Hebrew/Aramaic prefix found at Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 25:12 If I skip over something important, just let me know, and I will add it to my post. i will handle the other points after we get through this one, because it is a very important feature to this discussion that should be recognized.

You asked if I could show the KEC in Hebrew. Yes, I can, only it's not KEC its KAPH. I was mistaken about the letter. It is the 11th letter in the Hebrew alphabet and I have with me the Hebrew And English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs. I don't have a scan of the information nor an electronic copy, but I can give the reference and you can go do some research at a libarary if you do not have access to a copy yourself.

All you have to do is find the 11th letter of the Hebrew alphabet in the above referenced lexicon, which is on page 453 and you will see that the letter KAPH, a large backwards C, can mean WHEN or LIKE or ABOUT. There simply is no contesting that. And keep in mind that Hebrew prefixes are attached to the word at the very beginning of the word. So yes, the word in Daniel 5:31 rendered "about"(Kaph) is attached to the beginning of the word and the prefix(Kaph) at Jeremiah 25:12 is also attached to the word.

So, the word can be rendered WHEN as you see in many translations. HOWEVER, the word can also be rendered as ABOUT, just as it is in Daniel 5:31 and elsewhere. This is proven beyond any reasonable doubt by Brown, Drivers and Briggs.

Notice the following places in the Hebrew text where KAPH is prefixed to the word and is rendered as ABOUT instead of WHEN. Exodus 12:37; 32:28; Josh 4:13; 1 Sam. 9:22; 1 Sam. 25:38; Ruth 2:17.

These are just a few of the many, many places that this prefix appears in the Hebrew text but they are enough to well establish the point. Also the 3.b. meaning given in the BDB (Brown, Driver and Briggs) lexicon, found on page 454, is this:[b] [u] "of time, about, as, whether of the past or of the future."

One example given there is Gen. 19:17 where it suggests the rendering of "AS they were bringing them forth" which clearly indicates an incomplete action, not one that had been completed but well along in progress.

This is what the Lord says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfil my gracious promise to bring you back to this place."

It seems clear from the context in these two segments that the seventy years applies to Babylon itself, not to the period of time that the people of Judah are to spend in Babylon. In chapter 25 it says that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. Again in chapter 29, Jeremiah makes the connection to Babylon by saying that 70 years are "for Babylon".

################################################Please consider the Jeremiah 25:12 information above as to what it means, As far as Jeremiah 29:10, stating that it is specifically FOR Babylon is also not conclusive when one considers the original language words. The word rendered FOR could just as easily be rendered AT. If it were to read AT, then the verse would say AT Babylon and not FOR Babylon. For instance, at Jeremiah 3:17, the prefix is rendered as AT or IN because it has to do with location.

How can we tell which is the correct way? We can tell by looking at Ezra chapter one and the first few verses, which I will cover in a moment. But first, let's look at the word rendered FOR by your favored translations, at Jeremiah 29:10.

Once again, just like the prefix Kaph that we discussed earlier in relation to Jer. 25:12, we have another prefix attached to the word at Jer. 29:10. This prefix is "le", which doesn't really resemble anything in English as far as how it looks. Regardless, this prefix is attached to the word Babylon at Jer. 29:10. What meanings does the prefix "le" carry with it?

If we go again to the BDB lexicon (Brown, Driver abd Briggs, we find that it can mean both FOR and AT. In fact, the number 2 meaning given by BDB is: "Expressing locality, AT, near" -emphasis mine.

How do we know if it is referring to location as opposed to something else. It would have to be the context that would indicate the meaning. Let's look at the context of Jeremiah 29:10 and see what it indicates.

"This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 'Build houses and inhabit [them], and plant gardens and eat their fruitage. Take wives and become father to sons and to daughters; and take wives for your own sons and give your own daughters to husbands, that they may give birth to sons and to daughters; and become many there, and do not become few. Also, seek the peace of the city to which I have caused you to go into exile, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace there will prove to be peace for you yourselves. For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: "Let not your prophets who are in among you and your practicers of divination deceive you, and do not you listen to their dreams that they are dreaming. For 'it is in falsehood that they are prophesying to you in my name. I have not sent them,' is the utterance of Jehovah."'" "For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’"—Jeremiah 29:4-10.

Throughout the verses cited, the writer continually refers to the locality of Babylon, where the nation of "Judah went into exile from off its soil," (2 Kings 25:21) and from where the nation of Judah would be brought back, as prophesied at Jeremiah 33:7: "I will bring back the captives of Judah and the captives of Israel, and I will build them just as at the start."

The context strongly supports he notion of LOCALITY. But there is more to show that the 70 years referred to is NOT in reference to Babylonian supremacy but is in reference to the servitude/exile of the Jews.

Look at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1. The phrase, "that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," found at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1, proves that the "seventy years", the ones prophecied by Jeremiah, had not yet been fulfilled even after Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus.

If the words of Jeremiah about the 70 years applied to Babylonian supremacy, then that prophecy had already been fulfilled by the first year of Cyrus. According to the Bible, then, the "seventy years" do not refer to the period of Babylon's world rule.

It clearly shows that it was the release of the Jews to their homeland that would bring about it's fulfillment. We only have two places in Jeremiah where 70 years are prophetically mentioned in connection with the desolation or exile of Israel, that being Jeremiah 25:12 and Jeremiah 29:10. Ezra and 2 Chronicles PROVES that at least ONE of those references refers to the repatriation of the Jews to their homeland, NOT the dominion of Babylon.

In fact, there is every reason to think that BOTH Jeremian prophetic references refer to the Jews and their exile/desolation, NOT to Babylonian supremacy.

I thought this would be a significant point to discuss, especially in harmony with Daniel 9:1,2, which will no doubt soon be brought up.

A) The Hebrew word for “desolation,” chorbáh is also used in verse 18, where Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are stated to become “a desolation (chorbáh), . . . as it is today.” As Dr. J. A. Thompson remarks, “The phrase as it is today suggests that at the time of writing some aspects of this judgment, at 1east, were apparent.” (The Book of Jeremiah, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 516) The prophecy was uttered and written down in the fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . that is, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.” (Jer. 25:1; 36:1–4) But as that scroll was burned by Jehoiakim some months later, in the ninth month of his fifth year (36:9–25), another scroll had to be written. (36:32) At that time Nebuchadnezzar’s armies had already invaded and ravaged the land of Judah. At the time of writing, therefore, the phrase “as it is today” was probably added as a result of this desolation. That the word chorbáh does not necessarily imply a state of total desolation “without an inhabitant” can be seen from other texts which use the word, for example Ezekiel 33:24, 27 (”the inhabitants of these devastated places”) and at Nehemiah 2:17. During Nehemiah’s time Jerusalem was inhabited, yet the city is said to be “devastated (chorbáh).” The phrase “desolate waste, without an inhabitant” is found at Jeremiah 9:11 and 34:22. Although it refers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah it is nowhere equated with the period of seventy years. As pointed out by Professor Arthur Jeffrey in the Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 6, p. 485), chorbáh is ‘often employed to describe the state of a devastated land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Leviticus 26:31, 33; Isaiah 49:19; Jeremiah 44:22; Ezekiel 36:34; Malachi 1:4; 1 Maccabees 1:39).” It would not be inaccurate, therefore, to talk of Judah as chorbáh eighteen years prior to its depopulation, if the land had been ravaged by the army of an enemy at that time. Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and 1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97.

"Why is it that you have prophesied in the name of Jehovah, saying, 'Like that in Shiloh is how this house will become, and this very city will be devastated so as to be without an inhabitant'?"—Jeremiah 26:9.

To what extent would Jerusalem be devastated? The Scriptures reveal that the city would be devastated so as to be without an inhabitant.

Throughout the book of Jeremiah, the prophet continually and consistently confirms what he had in mind when he wrote Jeremiah 25:11:

"Be corrected, O Jerusalem, that my soul may not turn away disgusted from you; that I may not set you as a desolate waste, a land not inhabited."—Jeremiah 6:7-8.

"And I will make Jerusalem piles of stones, the lair of jackals; and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabitant."—Jeremiah 9:11.

"I saw the land, and, look! [it was] empty and waste; and into the heavens, and their light was no more. . . . I saw, and, look! there was not an earthling man, and the flying creatures of the heavens had all fled."—Jeremiah 4:23, 25.

"For this is what Jehovah has said: "A desolate waste is what the whole land will become, and shall I not carry out a sheer extermination? . . . Every city is left, and there is no man dwelling in them."—Jeremiah 4:27, 29b.

"So I shall give Zedekiah the king of Judah and his princes and the remnant of Jerusalem who are remaining over in this land and those who are dwelling in the land of Egypt. . . . And I will send against them the sword, the famine and the pestilence, until they come to their finish off the ground that I gave to them and to their forefathers."'"—Jeremiah 24:8, 10.

Furthermore, the extent of devastation, recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 as resulting from the destruction of Jerusalem, was foretold by the prophet Isaiah over 120 years in advance:

"Until the cities actually crash in ruins, to be without an inhabitant, and the houses be without earthling man, and the ground itself is ruined into a desolation; and Jehovah actually removes earthling men far away, and the deserted condition does become very extensive in the midst of the land."—Isaiah 6:11, 12.

It goes without saying that Judah was not made a "desolate wasteland" (NIV) or a "ruin and a waste" (NRSV), "without an inhabitant," at any point prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

In speaking to the "Jews that were dwelling in the land of Egypt" (Jeremiah 44:1) who fled there following the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah establishes the matter beyond all doubt:

"'You yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought in upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah, and here they are a devastated place this day, and in them there is no inhabitant. . . . So my rage, and my anger, was poured out and it burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they came to be a devastated place, a desolate waste, as at this day.'"—Jeremiah 44:2, 6.

The above verses show that Jeremiah's prophecy that "this land must become a devastated place" (Jeremiah 25:11)encompassed the complete desolation of the land. Therefore, it began to be fulfilled after the destruction of Jerusalem. Daniel 9:2 then, confirms that this "desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years."

Look at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1. The phrase, "that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," found at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1, proves that the "seventy years", the ones prophecied by Jeremiah, had not yet been fulfilled even after Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Chonicles 36:20 Those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath [d]until seventy years were complete.

22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia—in order to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah—the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying

Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying

At no point in Ezra is refering is implied the 70 years of Jeremiah 29:10 was still in process. It had ended, since God had punished Babylon which would mark the end of the 70 year. All Ezra is saying that after that period God would restored them to the land, but not that the 70 years was still in process. Ezra does not clearly indicate that the seventy years ended “in the first year of Cyrus,” or in 537, as the Watch Tower Society holds. On the contrary, such an understanding of his words would be in direct conflict with Jeremiah 25:12, where the seventy years are ended in 539 B.C.E.! This scripture provides the most telling evidence against the claim that the seventy years ended in 537 B.C.E. or in any other year after 539.

What about 2 Chronicles?

It may be observed that the Chronicler repeatedly emphasizes the agreement between the prophecies of Jeremiah and its fulfillment in the events he records. Thus the statement in verse 20 is an application of Jeremiah 27:7: “And all the nations shall serve him, and his son, and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes”. This time of Babylon came, the Chronicler explains, when “the royalty of Persia began to reign [i.e., in 539 B.C.E.], to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, . .. to fulfill seventy years.” This, then, would also fulfill the prediction at Jeremiah 25:12, that the time of Babylon would come “when seventy years have been fulfilled.”

Thus the Chronicler seems clearly to be saying that the seventy years were fulfilled at the Persian conquest of Babylon. What complicates the matter in our text is the statement (italicized in the quotation above) about the “sabbath rest” of the land, which is inserted in the middle of the reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy. This has caused a number of scholars to conclude that the Chronicler reinterpreted the prophecy of Jeremiah by applying the seventy years to the period of the desolation of Judah. Such an understanding, however, would not only conflict with Jeremiah’s prophecy; it would also contradict the Chronicler’s own emphasis on the agreement between the original prophecy and its fulfillment.

So what did the Chronicler mean by his insertion of the statement about the sabbath rest of the land?

The sabbath rest of the land A cursory reading of verse 21 could give the impression that the Chronicler states that the land had enjoyed a sabbath rest of seventy years, and that this had been predicted by Jeremiah. [u]But Jeremiah does not speak of the seventy years in terms of allowing the land to pay off its sabbath years. In fact, there is no reference at all to a sabbath rest for the land in his book[/u].

Therefore Ezra’s words, “until the land had paid off its sabbaths; all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath,” could not be a fulfillment of “Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah.” The two clauses about the sabbath rest are, as has been observed by Bible commentators, a reference to another prediction, found at Leviticus, chapter 26. Among other things, this chapter forewarns that, if the people did not obey the law of the sabbatical years (discussed in the preceding chapter, Leviticus 25), they would be scattered among the nations and their land would be desolated. In this way the land would be allowed to “pay off its sabbaths”:

At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.—Leviticus 26:34–35, NW.

Like Daniel earlier, the writer of the Chronicles understood the desolation of Judah to be a fulfillment of this curse predicted in the law of Moses. He therefore inserted this prediction from Leviticus 26 to show that it was fulfilled after the final deportation to Babylon, exactly as was predicted through Moses, “while you are in the land of your enemies.” By inserting the two clauses from Leviticus 26, the Chronicler did not mean to say that the land enjoyed a sabbath rest of seventy years, as this was not predicted, either by Moses or by Jeremiah. He does not tell explicitly how long it rested, only that “all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath.”―2 Chronicles 36:20.37 As with Daniel, the main interest of the Chronicler was the return of the exiles, and therefore he points out that they had to remain in Babylonia until two prophecies had been fulfilled:

(1) that of Jeremiah on the seventy years of supremacy “for Babylon,” and

(2) that in Leviticus on the desolation and sabbath rest for the land of Judah.

These prophecies should not be mixed up or confused, as is often done. Not only do they refer to periods of different character and different 1engths; they also refer to different nations. But as the two periods were closely connected in that the end of one period was contingent on the end of the other, the Chronicler, like Daniel, brought them together.

Last edited by hperez on Sun May 11, 2014 9:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

Many commentators hold that the Chronicler ended the seventy years in the first year of Cyrus (538/37 B.C.E.), because of what he says in the last two verses:

And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, so that he caused a cry to pass through all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying: ”This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among YOU of all his people, Jehovah his God be with him. So let him go up.’ “―2 Chronicles 36:22–23, NW.

If Jehovah’s word “by the mouth of Jeremiah” is here taken to be another reference to the seventy years, it might prove that Ezra ended that period in 538/37 B.C.E. But in view of the fact that these verses actually deal with Cyrus’ decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland, it is more natural to understand his reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy as a reference to what the prophet said immediately after his prediction of the seventy years “for Babylon” at Jeremiah 29:10: For thus says the LORD, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill my good word to you, to bring you back to this place.’ — Jeremiah 29:10, NASB.

Note that the prophet did not say that Jehovah first would visit the exiles, causing them to return to Jerusalem, and that as a result of that the seventy years would be accomplished. This is how the Watch Tower Society applies this prophecy. To the contrary, the prophet clearly states that the seventy years would be accomplished first, and after their fulfillment Jehovah would visit the exiles and cause them to return to Jerusalem. The seventy years, then, would be fulfilled while the Jewish exiles were still in Babylon!

And so it happened: Babylon fell to Cyrus, the king of Persia, in October, 539 B.C.E., thus fulfilling the prophecy of the seventy years “for Babylon.” The next year Cyrus issued his decree, allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem. The end of the seventy years at the fall of Babylon, and the return of the Jews one year later are two separate events, and it is the last of these that Ezra is speaking of at 2 Chronicles 36:22–23. His reference to the word “by the mouth of Jeremiah” in these verses, then, must be a reference to the second half of verse 10 in chapter 29 of the book of Jeremiah.

Thus we find that 2 Chronicles 36:20–23, like Daniel 9:2, may be brought into harmony with the prophecy of Jeremiah on the seventy years. The Chronicler ends the period while the Jewish exiles were stil1 living in Babylonia, when “the royalty of Persia began to reign” in 539 B.C.E. He lays stress upon the fact that the Jewish exiles could not return to Jerusalem until Babylon’s seventy years had been fulfilled, and the land had paid off its sabbaths. After that Jehovah caused them to return to their homeland, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10b, in the first year of Cyrus. The words of the Chronicler, correctly understood, cannot be taken to mean that the desolation of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple lasted for seventy years.

The last two texts to be discussed, Zechariah 1:7–12 and 7:1–5, are sometimes thought to be two additional references to Jeremiah’s prophecy about the seventy years, and the Watch Tower Society holds them to be so. But the evidence for this conclusion is totally lacking.

None of the texts contains any reference to Jeremiah (as do Daniel 9:1–2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20–23), and the context of these texts strongly indicates that the seventy years mentioned there must be given a different application. This is also the conclusion of many commentators.39 This will also become apparent in the following discussion.

Last edited by hperez on Sun May 11, 2014 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Babylonian dominion was definitely broken when the armies of Cyrus the Persian captured Babylon in the night between the 12th and 13th October, 539 B.C.E. (Julian calendar). Previously in the same night Belshazzar, the son of king Nabonidus and his deputy on the throne, got to know that the days of Babylon were numbered. Daniel the prophet, in his interpretation of the miraculous writing on the wall, told him that “God has numbered [the days or years of] your kingdom and has finished it.” In that very night Belshazzar was killed, and the kingdom was given to “Darius the Mede.” (Daniel 5:26–31, NW)

Obviously, the seventy years allotted to Babylon ended that night. This sudden collapse of the Babylonian empire incited Daniel to turn his attention to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years. He tells us:

Daniel 9:1–2: In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years. ― Daniel 9:1–2, NW.

It is not unreasonable to think that the “books” consulted by Daniel may have been a collection of scrolls containing the prophecies of Jeremiah. But the sources for his inquiry may as well have been limited to the letters that Jeremiah had sent to the exiles in Babylon fifty-six years earlier (Jeremiah 29:1–32), the first of which dealt with the seventy years “for Babylon.”

No doubt, these letters, at 1east, were available to him. The content of Daniel 9, in fact, and especially the prayer of Daniel recorded in verses 4– 19, is closely related to the content of Jeremiah’s 1etters, as has been demonstrated in detail by Dr. Gerald H. Wilson.29 : Did Daniel understand the seventy-year prophecy?

When Daniel states that he “discerned” (NW) in the writings of Jeremiah the prophecy of the seventy years, does this mean that he “understood” (KJV, RV, ASV) the sense of this prophecy and realized that the period had now ended? Or is he merely saying that he “noticed” (Moffatt) or “observed” (NASB) the seventy years mentioned by Jeremiah and “tried to understand” (NAB) them?

The Hebrew verb used here, bîn, may contain all these various shades of meaning.

However, if Daniel had any difficulties in understanding the meaning of this seventy-year period, one would expect that the prayer he offered as a result of his reading would contain a plea for understanding the prediction. But not once in his lengthy prayer does Daniel mention the seventy years. Instead, the whole emphasis of his prayer is on the Jewish exiles and the conditions set forth in Jeremiah’s letter for their return to Jerusalem.

It seems logical to conclude, therefore, that Daniel had no problems in understanding the seventy-year prophecy. As a Hebrew-speaking Jew, he would have no difficulties in understanding that the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 29:10 speaks of seventy years “for Babylon,” and that this was a reference to the period of Babylonian supremacy. From the fact that this supremacy had just ended, Daniel could draw only one conclusion: The seventy years had ended! Of greater importance for Daniel, however, was what the end of the seventy years could mean for his own people, the Jewish exiles at Babylon, and for the devastated city of Jerusalem and its ruined temple. And this was the subject that Daniel brought up in his prayer.

The relation of the seventy years to “the devastations of Jerusalem”

Daniel, then, in his examination of Jeremiah’s letter, evidently took a great interest in the fact that the end of the seventy years “for Babylon” was directly linked to the end of the desolation of Jerusalem. The end of the latter period presupposed and was dependent on the end of the former: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place [Jerusalem] . — Jeremiah 29:10, NRSV. This was evidently the reason why Daniel, in his reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy, connected the seventy years “for Babylon” with Jerusalem, speaking of them as “the number of years . . . for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem.” (Daniel 9:2, NW) It was clear from Jeremiah’s letter that the completion of Babylon’s seventy years would entail the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem” (by the return of the exiles), and it is this consequence that Daniel lays the stress on in his statement.31 Read in isolation from the wider context, however, these words could easily be misinterpreted to mean that Daniel equated the seventy-year period with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. Some Bible translators have understood the text that way.

Thus Tanakh, a translation published by the Jewish Publication Society in 1985, speaks of “the number of years that . . . were to be the term of Jerusalem’s desolation—seventy years .” Similarly, The New International Version (NIV) presents Daniel as saying that, “I understood from the Scriptures . . . that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.” Both of these translations, however, are freely paraphrasing the passage, which neither speaks of the “term” of Jerusalem’s desolation, nor that it would “last” seventy years. None of these words are found in the original text. They have been added in an attempt to interpret the text. There is no compelling reason to accept this interpretation, not only because it is arrived at by a paraphrasing of the text, but also because it is in direct conflict with Jeremiah’s own prophecy. It should be noted that Daniel himself does not equate the seventy years with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. It is only the expiration of the seventy-year period―not the period as a whole — that he relates to the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem.” This focusing on the end of the period is totally absent in the two translations quoted above (Tanakh and NIV), as they both fail to translate the Hebrew word lemal’ot, “fulfilling, to fulfill”.

Most translations (including The New World Translation) are more in conformity with the original text in this respect. What Daniel discovered by reading Jeremiah’s letter, then, was not that Jerusalem’s desolation would last for seventy years (for this is nowhere stated in Jeremiah), but that the desolations of Jerusalem would not cease until the seventy years “for Babylon” had ceased.

The focus of the “seventy years” was on Babylon, and her period of dominance, rather than on Jerusalem. The end of Babylon’s dominance would, of course, as a natural consequence or byproduct, open up the prospect for a Jewish return to Jerusalem. This is the simplest meaning of Daniel’s words in the light of what was actually written in Jeremiah’s letter. As the Babylonian supremacy suddenly had been replaced by the Medo- Persian rule and the seventy years “for Babylon” and her international domination had thus been completed, Daniel understood—by the aid of Jeremiah’s letter—that the completion of the devastations of Jerusalem was now due. This was the reason for Daniel’s excitement and strong feelings, as expressed in his prayer.

I will first address the Hebrew/Aramaic prefix found at Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 25:12 If I skip over something important, just let me know, and I will add it to my post. i will handle the other points after we get through this one, because it is a very important feature to this discussion that should be recognized.

You asked if I could show the KEC in Hebrew. Yes, I can, only it's not KEC its KAPH. I was mistaken about the letter. It is the 11th letter in the Hebrew alphabet and I have with me the Hebrew And English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs. I don't have a scan of the information nor an electronic copy, but I can give the reference and you can go do some research at a libarary if you do not have access to a copy yourself.

All you have to do is find the 11th letter of the Hebrew alphabet in the above referenced lexicon, which is on page 453 and you will see that the letter KAPH, a large backwards C, can mean WHEN or LIKE or ABOUT. There simply is no contesting that. And keep in mind that Hebrew prefixes are attached to the word at the very beginning of the word. So yes, the word in Daniel 5:31 rendered "about"(Kaph) is attached to the beginning of the word and the prefix(Kaph) at Jeremiah 25:12 is also attached to the word.

So, the word can be rendered WHEN as you see in many translations. HOWEVER, the word can also be rendered as ABOUT, just as it is in Daniel 5:31 and elsewhere. This is proven beyond any reasonable doubt by Brown, Drivers and Briggs.

Notice the following places in the Hebrew text where KAPH is prefixed to the word and is rendered as ABOUT instead of WHEN. Exodus 12:37; 32:28; Josh 4:13; 1 Sam. 9:22; 1 Sam. 25:38; Ruth 2:17.

These are just a few of the many, many places that this prefix appears in the Hebrew text but they are enough to well establish the point. Also the 3.b. meaning given in the BDB (Brown, Driver and Briggs) lexicon, found on page 454, is this: "of time, about, as, whether of the past or of the future."

One example given there is Gen. 19:17 where it suggests the rendering of "AS they were bringing them forth" which clearly indicates an incomplete action, not one that had been completed but well along in progress.

We can talk about Jeremiah 29:10 as soon as this is covered.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JUST BECAUSE A LETTER APPEARS DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS THE SAME MEANING EACH SINGLE OCCURRENCE THAT IS WHY NO ONE HAS TRANSLATED IT YOUR WAY. A LETTER CAN HAVE 20 DIFFERENT MEANINGS. HERE IS THE HEBREW RULE AND YOUR SPECULATION DOES NOT FIT. A WORD WITH SUCH A PREFIX CAN HAVE THE IDEA OF "ABOUT' ONLY IF IT IS BEFORE A SHEVA, WHICH IS NOT IN JEREMIAH 25:12. I HAVE LISTED ALL THE OCCURRENCES WHERE THE WORD IS USED IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES, CAN YOU LOCATE AT LEAST ONE TIME WHERE THE WORD HAS BEEN GIVEN THE MEANING OF ABOUT? JUST BECAUSE IT HAS THE PREFIX DOES NOT MEAN "ABOUT". AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE IT IS BEFORE AND INFINITIVE "TO FILL" AND CANNOT TAKE THE MEANING OF "ABOUT".

IN DANIELS 5:31 IT IS NOT BEFORE AN INFINITIVE, SO THE HEBREW RULE THAT APPLIES IS DIFFERENT AND YES IN DANIEL 5:31 CAN TAKE THE MEANING OF "ABOUT" A CERTAIN AGE, but it is totally different then in Jeremiah.

IN JEREMIAH 25:12 SINCE IT IS BEFORE AN INFINITIVE THAT IS WHY THE TRANSLATOR "ALL OF THEM" HAVE PROPERLY TRANSLATED IT AS "AFTER", OR "WHEN" SOMETHING HAS COMPLETED, ACCOMPLISHED AND NOT "ABOUT" A CERTAIN TIME OR PERIOD. #8800 Stem - Qal (See H8851) [u][b]Mood - Infinitive (See H8812) Count - 4888

Exodus 12:37; 32:28; Josh 4:13; 1 Sam. 9:22; 1 Sam. 25:38; Ruth 2:17. All these verses are again not following a infinitive verb so again they are not parallel with Jeremiah 25:12.

JEREMIAH 25:12 H4390מָלֵא male' 1) to fill, be full 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to be full 1a1a) fullness, abundance (participle) 1a1b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended 1a2) to consecrate, fill the hand 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied 1b2) to be accomplished, be ended 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to fill 1c2) to satisfy 1c3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete 1c4) to confirm 1d) (Pual) to be filled 1e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

Throughout the verses cited, the writer continually refers to the locality of Babylon, where the nation of "Judah went into exile from off its soil," (2 Kings 25:21) and from where the nation of Judah would be brought back, as prophesied at Jeremiah 33:7: "I will bring back the captives of Judah and the captives of Israel, and I will build them just as at the start."

The context strongly supports he notion of LOCALITY. But there is more to show that the 70 years referred to is NOT in reference to Babylonian supremacy but is in reference to the servitude/exile of the Jews. Look at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1. The phrase, "that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," found at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1, proves that the "seventy years", the ones prophecied by Jeremiah, had not yet been fulfilled even after Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus.

If the words of Jeremiah about the 70 years applied to Babylonian supremacy, then that prophecy had already been fulfilled by the first year of Cyrus. According to the Bible, then, the "seventy years" do not refer to the period of Babylon's world rule.

It clearly shows that it was the release of the Jews to their homeland that would bring about it's fulfillment. We only have two places in Jeremiah where 70 years are prophetically mentioned in connection with the desolation or exile of Israel, that being Jeremiah 25:12 and Jeremiah 29:10. Ezra and 2 Chronicles PROVES that at least ONE of those references refers to the repatriation of the Jews to their homeland, NOT the dominion of Babylon.

In fact, there is every reason to think that BOTH Jeremian prophetic references refer to the Jews and their exile/desolation, NOT to Babylonian supremacy.

The Hebrew preposition le (lamed) The preposition le is the most common preposition in the Hebrew Old Testament. According to a recent count, it occurs 20,725 times, 1352 of which are found in the book of Jeremiah.

What does it mean at Jeremiah 29:10? Although some of the Hebraists explained that le in a few expressions has a local sense (“in, at”), in most cases it does not, and they unanimously reject this meaning at Jeremiah 29:10. Furuli disagrees with their view. He believes that because le is used in a local sense in some expressions at a few places it is likely used in this sense also in Jeremiah 29:10. He argues: Can it really be used in the local sense “at”? It certainly can, and The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists about 30 examples of this meaning, one of which is Numbers 11:10, “each man at (le) the entrance of his tent”.

So, in each case when le is used, it is the context that must decide its meaning. For example, in Jeremiah 51:2 the phrase lebâbel means “to Babylon”, because the preceding verb is “to send”. But lirûshâlâm [the letters li at the beginning of the word is a contraction of le+yod] in Jeremiah 3:17 in the clause, “all the nations will gather in Jerusalem” has the local meaning “in Jerusalem”, and the same is true with the phrase lîhûdâ in Jeremiah 40:11 in the clause, “the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah”. (p. 86)

Well and good, but do these examples allow lebâbel at Jeremiah 29:10 to be translated “in” or “at Babylon”? Is this really a likely translation? Is it even a possible one?

This question was sent to Professor Ernst Jenni in Basel, Switzerland, who is undoubtedly the leading authority today on Hebrew prepositions. So far, he has written three volumes on three of the most common Hebrew prepositions, be (beth), ke (kaph), and le (lamed). In the volume on le (lamed) he devotes 350 pages to the examination of this preposition.108 His answer of October 1, 2003, quoted on page 214 above, is worth repeating here:

My treatment of this passage is found in the Lamed-book p. 109 (heading 4363). The rendering in all modem commentaries and translations is “for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context. By the “local meaning” a distinction is to be made between where? (“in, at”) and where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic meaning of l is “with reference to”, and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g., Num. 11,10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] “at the entrance”, cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151). At Jer. 51,2 l is a personal dative (”and send to Babel [as personified world power] winnowers, who will winnow it and empty its land” (Lamed pp. 84f., 94)). On Jer. 3,17 “to Jerusalem” (local terminative), everything necessary is in Lamed pp. 256, 270 and ZAH 1, 1988, 107–111.

On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative (”for Babylon”). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylon, “in Babylon”, thus King James Version “at Babylon”, and so probably also the New World Translation. I hope to have served you with these informations and remain with kind regards, E. Jenni. [Translated from the German. Emphasis added.]

In view of this specific and authoritative information, Furuli’s arguments for a local meaning of le at Jeremiah 29:10 can be safely dismissed.

What other Hebrew scholars say

Modern Hebrew scholars generally agree that the local or spatial sense of le is highly improbable, if not impossible, at Jer. 29:10. Dr. Tor Magnus Amble at the University of Oslo, Norway, for example, says: ”The preposition le means ‘to’, ‘for’ (`direction towards’ or ‘reference to’). Aside from in a few fixed expressions, it hardly has a locative sense, and in any case not here. Very often it introduces an indirect object (‘respecting to’, corresponding to a Greek dative). This is also how the translators of LXX have understood it, as you quite correctly point out. Thus the translation has to be: seventy years ‘for Babel’.” — Private letter dated November 23, 1990. (Emphasis added.)

The Swedish Hebraist Dr. Seth Erlandsson is even more emphatic: ”The spatial sense is impossible at Jer. 29:10. Nor has LXX ‘at Babylon’, but dative; consequently ‘for Babylon’ .” — Private letter dated December 23, 1990. (Emphasis added.)It would be easy to add many other similar statements by Hebrew scholars, but it may suffice here to quote Professor Ernst Jenni at Basel, Switzerland. This leading authority on le (footnote 26 above) says:

The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is “for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context. By the “local meaning” a distinction is to be made between where? (in, at) and where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic meaning of l is with reference to, and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g. Num. 11, 10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] “at the entrance”, cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151).

On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative (”for Babylon”). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone, “in Babylon”, thus King James Version “at Babylon”, and so probably also the New World Translation.—Letter Jenni-Jonsson, October 1, 2003. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, as Jeremiah 29:10 literally speaks of seventy years “for Babylon,” it is clear that they cannot refer to the period of the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple, or even to the period of the Jewish exile at Babylon. Rather, like Jeremiah 25:10–12, what is in view is the period of Babylonian supremacy. This is also the conclusion arrived at by scholars who have carefully examined the text. Some typical comments are cited in the following box:

===========================================The seventy years "for Babylon" "The sense of the Hebrew original might even be rendered thus: ‘After seventy years of (the rule of) Babylon are accomplished etc.’ The seventy years counted here evidently refer to Babylon and not to the Judeans or to their captivity. They mean seventy years of Babylonian rule, the end of which will see the redemption of the exiles"—Dr. Avigdor On, "The seventy years of Babylon," Vetus Testamentum, Vol. VI (1956), p. 305.

"It is appropriate to begin with the passages of Jeremiah and to observe, with On, that the references in Jer. 25:11-12 and 29:10—whether original to the passages or not—are to a period of seventy years of Babylonian rule, and not to a period of seventy years of actual captivity"—Dr. Peter R. Ackroyd, "Two Old Testament historical problems of the early Persian period," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVII (1958), p. 23.

"Certainly it must be stressed that the seventy years refer primarily to the time of Babylonian world dominion and not to the time of the exile, as is often carelessly supposed. As an estimate of Babylon’s domination of the ancient Near East it was a remarkably accurate figure, for from the Battle of Carchemish (605) to the fall of Babylon to Cyrus (539) was sixty-six years"—Professor Norman K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth (New York, Evanston, London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964), pp. 265, 266.

"It has often been pointed out that the textually unobjectionable verse with its seventy years does not have in view the length of the exile , but rather the duration of the Babylonian dominion, which from its beginning until the Persian conquest of Babylon may be calculated to about seven decades. "—Dr. Otto Plöger, Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), p. 68. (Translated from the German.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jeremiah 25:10–12 and 29:10 contain the prophecy of the seventy years. Every attempt to find an application of the seventy-year period, therefore, must proceed from the prophecy, not from the references to it. It is only the prophecy that gives specific details on the seventy years, as follows, (1) that they refer to “these nations,” (2) that they were to be a period of servitude for these nations, (3) that they refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and (4) that this period would be fulfilled when the king of Babylon was punished. Such detailed information is missing in the latter references to the prophecy by Daniel and Ezra. The discussion of these references, then, should always be done in the light of what the prophecy actually is abou

Last edited by hperez on Sun May 11, 2014 1:29 pm, edited 8 times in total.

Furuli has the same arguments that you have and has been found wrong or misleading.

What about the 70 years at Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5?

That the 70-year texts at Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5 refer to a period different from the one in Jeremiah, Daniel, and 2 Chronicles is clear. Furuli’s attempt to equate the 70 years in Zechariah with the 70 years of Jeremiah, Daniel, and the Chronicler evades the real problem. According to Zechariah 1:12, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah had been denounced for “these seventy years.” If this denunciation ended when the Jews returned from the exile after the fall of Babylon, as Furuli holds, why does our text show that the cities still were being denounced in the second year of Darius, 520/519 BCE? Furuli has no explanation for this, and he prefers not to comment on the problem.

The same holds true of Zechariah 7:4,5. How can the 70 years of fasting have ended in 537 BCE, as Furuli claims, when our text clearly shows that these fasts were still being held in the fourth year of Darius, 518/517 BCE? Furuli again ignores the problem. He just refers to the fact that the Hebrew verbs for “denounce,” “fast,” and “mourn” are all in the Hebrew perfect, stating that, “There is nothing in the verbs themselves which demands that the 70 years were still continuing at speech time.” (p. 88) True, but they do not demand the opposite, either. The verb forms in the passage prove nothing.

But the context does. It clearly shows that the cities were still being denounced “at speech time,” in 519 BCE, and that the fasts were still being held “at speech time,” in 517 BCE, about 70 years after the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 589–587 BCE. That is why this question was raised in 519 BCE: Why is Jehovah still angry at Jerusalem and the cities? (Zechariah 1:7–12) And that is also why this question was raised in 517 BCE: Shall we continue to hold these fasts? (Zechariah 7:1–12) Furuli’s interpretation (which echoes the Watchtower Society’s) implies that the denunciation of the cities and the keeping of the fasts had been going on for about 90 — not 70 — years, directly contradicting the statements in the book of Zechariah.

Last edited by hperez on Sun May 11, 2014 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Does Jeremiah anywhere specifically qualify what this devastation would entail? Jeremiah 26:9 answers:

"Why is it that you have prophesied in the name of Jehovah, saying, 'Like that in Shiloh is how this house will become, and this very city will be devastated so as to be without an inhabitant'?"—Jeremiah 26:9.

To what extent would Jerusalem be devastated? The Scriptures reveal that the city would be devastated so as to be without an inhabitant.

Throughout the book of Jeremiah, the prophet continually and consistently confirms what he had in mind when he wrote Jeremiah 25:11:

"Be corrected, O Jerusalem, that my soul may not turn away disgusted from you; that I may not set you as a desolate waste, a land not inhabited."—Jeremiah 6:7-8.

"And I will make Jerusalem piles of stones, the lair of jackals; and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabitant."—Jeremiah 9:11.

"I saw the land, and, look! [it was] empty and waste; and into the heavens, and their light was no more. . . . I saw, and, look! there was not an earthling man, and the flying creatures of the heavens had all fled."—Jeremiah 4:23, 25.

"For this is what Jehovah has said: "A desolate waste is what the whole land will become, and shall I not carry out a sheer extermination? . . . Every city is left, and there is no man dwelling in them."—Jeremiah 4:27, 29b.

"So I shall give Zedekiah the king of Judah and his princes and the remnant of Jerusalem who are remaining over in this land and those who are dwelling in the land of Egypt. . . . And I will send against them the sword, the famine and the pestilence, until they come to their finish off the ground that I gave to them and to their forefathers."'"—Jeremiah 24:8, 10.

Furthermore, the extent of devastation, recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 as resulting from the destruction of Jerusalem, was foretold by the prophet Isaiah over 120 years in advance:

"Until the cities actually crash in ruins, to be without an inhabitant, and the houses be without earthling man, and the ground itself is ruined into a desolation; and Jehovah actually removes earthling men far away, and the deserted condition does become very extensive in the midst of the land."—Isaiah 6:11, 12.

It goes without saying that Judah was not made a "desolate wasteland" (NIV) or a "ruin and a waste" (NRSV), "without an inhabitant," at any point prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

In speaking to the "Jews that were dwelling in the land of Egypt" (Jeremiah 44:1) who fled there following the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah establishes the matter beyond all doubt:

"'You yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought in upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah, and here they are a devastated place this day, and in them there is no inhabitant. . . . So my rage, and my anger, was poured out and it burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they came to be a devastated place, a desolate waste, as at this day.'"—Jeremiah 44:2, 6.

The above verses show that Jeremiah's prophecy that "this land must become a devastated place" (Jeremiah 25:11)encompassed the complete desolation of the land. Therefore, it began to be fulfilled after the destruction of Jerusalem. Daniel 9:2 then, confirms that this "desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years."

I think you misunderstand what I have said. I know that God told them that they would eventually be destroyed if they did not obeyed the prophets such as Jeremiah, but the question is if the period of 70 years in Jeremiah 25:12 started with such destruction? I know that the 70 year period started when "the Nations" began to fall in servitude to Babylon, God sent Jeremiah to warn Israel not to revolt, but to continue paying tribute to Babylon or as you well pointed out Jeremiah 26:9 he would make the city a curse. There is no contradiction with what I am saying, it did happened that "during the interval" of the 70 years for Babylon they did not obey the Prophet revolted and were finally destroyed in 587 BCE.

Although it refers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah it is nowhere equated with the period of seventy years. As pointed out by Professor Arthur Jeffrey in the Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 6, p. 485), chorbáh is ‘often employed to describe the state of a devastated land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Leviticus 26:31, 33; Isaiah 49:19; Jeremiah 44:22; Ezekiel 36:34; Malachi 1:4; 1 Maccabees 1:39).” It would not be inaccurate, therefore, to talk of Judah as chorbáh eighteen years prior to its depopulation, if the land had been ravaged by the army of an enemy at that time. Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and 1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97.

I read through these two responses to the information and questions I asked about the end of 2 Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra. You started in by dealing primarily with the phrase in 2 Chronicles that mentioned the Sabbath rest, a point that I did not even address. Also, you keep using Jer. 25:12 and Jer. 29:10 as proof of your position and those two verses are still under debate and have not been resolved, contrary to your claims. My responses to your points about those verses will point that out. So frankly, I think you spent some time here going in a big circle. You can’t use the verses in question to prove your point about the same verses in question, that’s just a circle and gets us nowhere.

Again, notice how the verses read in Ezra and 2 Chronicles as to the indication of whether or not the referenced prophecy has actually been fulfilled.

Again, think about the words and what they have to mean. The phrase, "that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," found at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1, proves that the "seventy years", the ones prophecied by Jeremiah, had not yet been fulfilled even after Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus.

Let me break this down for you a little more. You say, that by the first year of Cyrus, the 70 year prophecy about Babylon’s dominion had already been fulfilled, right? Why then would something else have to happen in order to accomplish that? It was already ended as you say. There would not need to be anything else to happen in order to accomplish Jeremiah’s words IF THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED!! The very fact that something further was to happen in order to accomplish the words of Jeremiah, spoken on the same context with the 70 years, PROVES that the prophecy was not yet fulfilled. How else can it be understood and make any natural sense of what is actually said? Regardless of how one tries to break up the words to make it fit otherwise, it cannot be denied that the most natural reading is the one that supports the idea that the 70 years prophesied by Jeremiah had not yet ended. Anything beyond that is special pleading.

You claim that it would contradict Jeremiah 29:10 because it says that AFTER 70 years “for”(?) Babylon, God would turn his attention to the exiles to be released. Jeremiah did not use the word AFTER. That is someone's conjecture. (I’ll cover that below) Even at that, that doesn’t change the point that I am making. It still would mean that SOMETHING else had to happen in the first year of Cyrus in order for Jeremiah’s prophecy to be accomplished. And to claim it's not the same prophecy as the one about the 70 years is to break the sentence up in a way that creates nothing more than linguistic gymnastics, some of the worst I've seen. As I said, special pleading.

The point is SOMETHING still had to happen. And since Babylon had already been completely overthrown by that point, it shows that the 70 years could not have applied to Babylon, unless you want to play gymnastics with the context. Who was it in connection with then? That’s easy. Ezra and the Chronicler make no mistake about that by showing that in order for Jeremiah’s words TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, they were to go back to Jerusalem.

JEREMIAH 29:10

You claim that Jeremiah 29:10 says AFTER the 70 years “for” Babylon, then God would turn his attention to the Israelites to bring them home again. That’s not exactly true and here’s why:

The word that is rendered AFTER in some translations at Jeremiah 29:10 does not mean AFTER. In fact, I am not sure why anyone ever rendered it that way other than interpolation. What I have found is that it is rendered from the Hebrew word “peh”, which does not carry the meaning of after. The second and third meaning attributed to “peh” is “ACCORDING TO, or AT THE RATE OF. That is why the NWT renders it “IN ACCORDANCE WITH” which is a good reflection of the meaning. AFTER is not. The Hebrew word for after is “achar”, such as at Deut. 31:29 “I know that AFTER ” my death.” So there is no contradiction between Ezra’s words and Jeremiah 29:10 if one translates properly.

Plus, you claimed that Jeremiah 29:10 can’t be rendered AT or IN, but must be FOR. You quoted a number of scholars who support the FOR rendition. However, do all translators agree with such an evaluation that it must be FOR instead of IN or AT, which designate location? No, they do not.

For instance, let’s look at the LXX, which was a Greek rendition of the Hebrew. How did they, the JEWS THEMSELVES, understand the reference? Well, the LXX clearly renders the Hebrew word “peh” here, as “en”, which predominantly means IN, not FOR. So the Jews themselves understood it to say IN Babylon, which is a perfect fit with what we have regarded it to mean and is backed up by Ezra and the Chronicler. The LXX proves that it was in reference to LOCATION. Now unless you think that the Jews themselves did not understand the prophecy that was personally about them, then you have to see that LOCATION was the focus when it comes to Jeremiah 29:10.

Jeremiah 25:12

You claim that where KAPH followed by an infinitive verb, changes the way it should be rendered and can’t mean ABOUT. If you recall, I quoted from BDB lexicon where the KAPH was followed by an infinitive verb. Remember this?

Also the 3.b. meaning given in the BDB (Brown, Driver and Briggs) lexicon, found on page 454, is this: "of time, about, as, whether of the past or of the future."One example given there is Gen. 19:17 where it suggests the rendering of "AS THEY WERE BRINGING THEM FORTH" which clearly indicates an incomplete action, not one that had been completed but well along in progress.

Genesis 19:17 is the same construction as Jeremiah 25:12 where KAPH is followed by an infinitive verb, and it clearly shows that it could refer to an action NEARLY completed but not finished. In other words, it was ABOUT done, but not complete, and that is exactly what I have been saying.

The Inifinitve construct can show continuing action as this reference from Blueletterbible will show.1a) Infinitive Construct is used as a verbal noun corresponding to the English verbal noun ending in "-ing".

“Ing” shows continuing action, not completion. Therefore, Jeremiah 25:12 could be referring to an action not yet completed according to the KAPH followed by the infinitive verb construction.

YOU SAID"Again, think about the words and what they have to mean. The phrase, "that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," found at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1, proves that the "seventy years", the ones prophecied by Jeremiah, had not yet been fulfilled even after Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus.

Let me break this down for you a little more. You say, that by the first year of Cyrus, the 70 year prophecy about Babylon’s dominion had already been fulfilled, right? Why then would something else have to happen in order to accomplish that? It was already ended as you say. There would not need to be anything else to happen in order to accomplish Jeremiah’s words IF THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED!! The very fact that something further was to happen in order to accomplish the words of Jeremiah, spoken on the same context with the 70 years, PROVES that the prophecy was not yet fulfilled. How else can it be understood and make any natural sense of what is actually said? Regardless of how one tries to break up the words to make it fit otherwise, it cannot be denied that the most natural reading is the one that supports the idea that the 70 years prophesied by Jeremiah had not yet ended. Anything beyond that is special pleading.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++oh, you are incorrect there was something that still needed to be fullfilled

Jeremiah 29:10 New International VersionThis is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place.

If you cannot see the two separate events on the above quote I am not sure how I can help. One event follows the other, they cannot be one and the same.

1) Jeremiah 29:10a, The seventy years are completed for Babylon 539 BCE. Jerm 25:12 “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation2) God brings judgment upon Babylon 3) Jeremiah 29:10b, God promise after the conclusion of the 70 years, he will bring them back. Jerm 29:10 “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place.4) God uses Cyrus to let his people go back 538/3537 BCE

That is the Word of Jeremiah that would be fulfilled, that after the 70 years had ENDED he will bring them back. There is no sign that the 70 years for Babylon were still in process, and it could not have been, since the King of Babylon had been punished marking the end of the 70 years for Babylon.

And so it happened: Babylon fell to Cyrus, the king of Persia, in October, 539 B.C.E., thus fulfilling the prophecy of the seventy years “for Babylon.” The next year Cyrus issued his decree, allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem. The end of the seventy years at the fall of Babylon, and the return of the Jews one year later are two separate events, and it is the last of these that Ezra is speaking of at 2 Chronicles 36:22–23. His reference to the word “by the mouth of Jeremiah” in these verses, then, must be a reference to the second half of verse 10 in chapter 29 of the book of Jeremiah.

Thus we find that 2 Chronicles 36:20–23, like Daniel 9:2, may be brought into harmony with the prophecy of Jeremiah on the seventy years. The Chronicler ends the period while the Jewish exiles were stil1 living in Babylonia, when “the royalty of Persia began to reign” in 539 B.C.E. He lays stress upon the fact that the Jewish exiles could not return to Jerusalem until Babylon’s seventy years had been fulfilled, and the land had paid off its sabbaths. After that Jehovah caused them to return to their homeland, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10b, in the first year of Cyrus. The words of the Chronicler, correctly understood, cannot be taken to mean that the desolation of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple lasted for seventy years

Actually, 2 Chronicles 36:22 is a perfect parallel to Jeremiah 29:10b. But, Jeremiah 29:10 and 2 Chronicles 36:22 follow Jeremiah 25:12 (70 year were fulfilled and the king of Babylon had already been punished), Then follows the fulfillment of the second part of the word of Jeremiah 29:10.

2 Chronicles

22 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:

23 “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:

“‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the Lord their God be with them.’”

Jeremiah 29:10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place.

you said anything beyond that is pleading? Nope, what is pleading is thinking all the data was simply wrong and a mistake and to try to use incorrect translations. The natural reading of Jeremiah 29:10 shows two separate distinct events, what is not natural is making them the same without any foundation.

Last edited by hperez on Tue May 13, 2014 6:38 am, edited 4 times in total.

One example given there is Gen. 19:17 where it suggests the rendering of "AS they were bringing them forth" which clearly indicates an incomplete action, not one that had been completed but well along in process+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I asked what version are you quoting, because it is clear they are not following proper Hebrew grammar. JUST BECAUSE YOU FOUND A VERSION THAT DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER HEBREW GRAMMAR DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT.

New International Version

As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"

New Living TranslationWhen they were safely out of the city, one of the angels ordered, "Run for your lives! And don't look back or stop anywhere in the valley! Escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away!"

New American Standard Bible When they had brought them outside, one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away."

King James BibleAnd it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

Holman Christian Standard BibleAs soon as the angels got them outside, one of them said, "Run for your lives! Don't look back and don't stop anywhere on the plain! Run to the mountains, or you will be swept away!"

NET BibleWhen they had brought them outside, they said, "Run for your lives! Don't look behind you or stop anywhere in the valley! Escape to the mountains or you will be destroyed!"

GOD'S WORD® TranslationAs soon as they were outside, one [of the angels] said, "Run for your lives! Don't look behind you, and don't stop on the plain. Run for the hills, or you'll be swept away!"

American King James VersionAnd it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for your life; look not behind you, neither stay you in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed.

American Standard VersionAnd it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the Plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

Douay-Rheims BibleAnd they brought him forth, and set him without the city: and there they spoke to him, saying : Save thy life : look not back, neither stay thou in all the country about: but save thyself in the mountain, lest thou be also consumed.

Darby Bible TranslationAnd it came to pass when they had brought them outside, that he said, Escape for thy life: look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain: escape to the mountain, lest thou perish.

English Revised VersionAnd it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the Plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

Webster's Bible TranslationAnd it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life: look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain: escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

ALL THE ABOVE VERSION PROPERLY MAKE IT A COMPLETE ACTION NOT SOMETHING IN PROCESS.

#9008 כְּ or כִּ or כַּprefix, particle of comparison, similarity or proportion;

before Sheva, with article - as, like, as if; at, about [a time], according to, after;

before an infinitive - as, when, if, after.

THE RULE IS SIMPLE AND CLEAR, WHY SOME CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW IS NOT MY PROBLEM.

The other grammar factor is the following: #8812 Infinitive

There are two forms of the infinitive:

1a) Infinitive Construct is used as a verbal noun corresponding to the English verbal noun ending in "-ing"

1a1) as subject to keep the judgments to seek thy heart

1a2) as object in his "writing" he spoke, "saying"

1b) The Infinitive Absolute does not allow prefixes or suffixes

1b1) Used with a verb to emphasize the verbal idea. This is often rendered by an English adverb , such as, "surely", "utterly".

he will surely visit you he utterly destroyed the people

1b2) It may be used by itself with the value of a finite form of the verb, especially an imperative.

remember the sabbath day

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said :For instance, let’s look at the LXX, which was a Greek rendition of the Hebrew. How did they, the JEWS THEMSELVES, understand the reference? Well, the LXX clearly renders the Hebrew word “peh” here, as “en”, which predominantly means IN, not FOR. So the Jews themselves understood it to say IN Babylon, which is a perfect fit with what we have regarded it to mean and is backed up by Ezra and the Chronicler. The LXX proves that it was in reference to LOCATION. Now unless you think that the Jews themselves did not understand the prophecy that was personally about them, then you have to see that LOCATION was the focus when it comes to Jeremiah 29:10.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I have already shown why that is inaccurate, most Scholars disagree and most translation do not support your view. Of course, the Jews understood the prophecy is just not the Watchtower version. But in regards to the LXX you are mistaken

It's not a matter of how many translations have rendered it a certain way, it's a matter of how it CAN be grammatically rendered. Again, the grammar clearly allows for what I am saying as is proven by what BDB has presented in their lexicon. If you can't overturn the grammatical evidence, then the point stands as is, regardless as to how many translators render it a certain way.

Can you refute the following grammatical evidence or not? That's the real question you need to answer.

Here it is again, which you didn't even address:

Also the 3.b. meaning given in the BDB (Brown, Driver and Briggs) lexicon, found on page 454, is this: "of time, about, as, whether of the past or of the future."

One example given there is Gen. 19:17 where it suggests the rendering of "AS THEY WERE BRINGING THEM FORTH" which clearly indicates an incomplete action, not one that had been completed but well along in progress.

Genesis 19:17 is the same construction as Jeremiah 25:12 where KAPH is followed by an infinitive verb, and it clearly shows that it could refer to an action NEARLY completed but not finished. In other words, it was ABOUT done, but not complete, and that is exactly what I have been saying.

The Inifinitve construct can show continuing action as this reference from Blueletterbible will show.1a) Infinitive Construct is used as a verbal noun corresponding to the English verbal noun ending in "-ing".

“Ing” shows continuing action, not completion. Therefore, Jeremiah 25:12 could be referring to an action not yet completed according to the KAPH followed by the infinitive verb construction.

Genesis 19:17 is a desperate parallel, but if you still want to make it the same so let be it. Either way, I have made my point very clear and the Hebrew grammar is clear. The other factor is if the verb is "absolute" form or not. In Genesis 19:17 it is not as it is in Jeremiah 25:12. So, the ING ending cannot be inserted. Either, way "about" cannot be one of the meaning as you wanted to insert in Jeremiah 25:12, in whichever form of the infinite verb we find it.

You will not find any translation saying

when the 70 years are finishing0r When the 70 years are been fulfilling0r are ending.

According to what BDB says, I have demonstrated that in Gen. 19:17, the grammatical contruction allows for the rendering of incomplete action. You claim that Genesis 19:17 and Jeremiah 25:12 have a different construction but you do not show that in any way. They are both examples of where the KAPH is followed by an infifnite verb. Please show me then why Jeremiah 25:12 can't follow the same procedure as Gen. 19:17, backed up by BDB.

You claim no translation renders it as "fulfilling" in the sense of continuous action, yet that again is not true. Look at the LXX and you will see what you claim does not exist.

I have already shown why that is inaccurate, most Scholars disagree and most translation do not support your view. Of course, the Jews understood the prophecy is just not the Watchtower version. But in regards to the LXX you are mistaken

Uhg, you are right it seems the Jews did know after all. So, from both the Hebrew and the Greek the proper translation is "for" not "in".

Mr. Erlandsson must have never heard of the DATIVE OF LOCATION. To claim it can't mean IN Babylon is simply false. The DATIVE OF LOCATION easily covers that, and the fact that the Greek word EN precedes the DATIVE Babylon, confirms that it is LOCATIONAL, because EN does not mean FOR but PRIMARILY IN.

Your schoalr is mistaken. That's probably why it can only be found in a private letter. You couldn't put that in a theological work and get by with it.

Once again, I believe that the LXX will give us some great insight as to how the Jews themselves understood what Daniel was talking about. Let’s take a look:

“I Daniel perceived in the books the number of the years of which became the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for a fulfillment of the desolation of Jerusalem-seventy years.”

It should be as plain as the nose on one’s face that the desolation of Jerusalem in this sentence is directly connected to the 70 years. Without some theological axe to grind or an extreme bias, there is no reason to read the words any differently than the way they naturally fall on the page, and the most natural reading of this is that the seventy years apply to the desolation of Jerusalem, NOT to the supremacy of Babylon, which is not mentioned.

The fact is that even if chorbah can mean a smaller devastation, every time Jeremiah speaks of the desolation of Jerusalem, each time it was in connection with a COMPLETE desolation, not a partial one, as he often described in connection with the word chorbah, many times side by side with the word. There is no reason, except an inordinate desire to follow traditional chronology, to see Daniel any other way than to see it as a description of the length of TOTAL desolation, being 70 years.

Also, for those who claim it refers to the first desolation in 605 BCE, Neb's first year, that only brings about 68 years, not 70, so right off at the start, the application is wacked to the tuned of about two years.

Again, let’s look at the references and see the context in which they occur.

First, the word “chorbah” as used by Jeremiah.

Jer. 7:34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.

Clearly a reference to total desolation, not partial .

Jeremiah 22:5,6: But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.For thus saith the LORD unto the king's house of Judah; Thou art Gilead unto me, and the head of Lebanon: yet surely I will make thee a wilderness, and cities which are not inhabited.

Again, total desolation, not partial.

Jeremiah 25:9 and 11: Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Obvious reference to total desolation, not partial.

Jeremiah 25:18 To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse; as it is this day;

IN context clearly a reference to total desolation.

Jeremiah 22:17: Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon, and live: wherefore should this city be laid waste?

This shows that Jeremiah did not think the desolation had occurred yet. This was well past the supposed deportation in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 44:2, 6."'You yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought in upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah, and here they are a devastated place this day, and in them there is no inhabitant. . . . So my rage, and my anger, was poured out and it burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they came to be a devastated place, a desolate waste, as at this day.'"—

Again, COMPLETE desolation spoken of by Jeremiah.

Jer. 44:22 So that the LORD could no longer bear, because of the evil of your doings, and because of the abominations which ye have committed; therefore is your land a desolation, and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day.

Total desolation referred to, not partial.

Jer. 49:13 For I have sworn by myself, saith the LORD, that Bozrah shall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes.

Not in reference to Jerusalem but still, a total waste is signified.

So we do not have a single reference written by Jeremiah, that doesn’t use the word “chorbah” in relation to COMPLETE desolation. Therefore, when we see Daniel’s reference to Jeremiah’s words about the desolation of Jerusalem, and connecting it with 70 years, the natural way to read that, without any extreme bias and an agenda to accept traditional chronology, is to see it as a reference to 70 years of complete desolation. Biblical precedent shows that Jeremiah uses the word in regards to a complete desolation, not a partial, so the reference in Daniel, which he attributes to Jeremiah, in keeping with Biblical precedent, would be speaking of a period of COMPLETE desolation, not partial.

I DONT THINK IF YOU READ THIS YOU CAN CLAIM I AM ONLY QUOTING AN UNKNOWN LETTER

hahah mistaken a real Hebraist, but you are correct about "about". What a joke? Stick to the Hebrew grammar and don't try to jump.

Mr. Erlandsson must have never heard of the DATIVE OF LOCATION. To claim it can't mean IN Babylon is simply false. The DATIVE OF LOCATION easily covers that, and the fact that the Greek word EN precedes the DATIVE Babylon, confirms that it is LOCATIONAL, because EN does not mean FOR but PRIMARILY IN.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I guess the person that was pushing "about" now know more then real Hebraist. Now, you know more, really? And you keep pushing a rule that is impossible? BUT I GUESS YOU ARE RIGHT AND ALL OF THESE HEBRAIST ARE ALSO WRONG WHY DONT YOU SHOW US 'DATIVE OF LOCATION" TRUE MEANING? but before you do here is some info for you:

Jeremiah 29:10: The Septuagint and Vulgate versions

You points out that “the Septuagint has the dative form babylôni” but with “the most natural meaning being ‘at Babylon’.” The statement reveals a surprising ignorance of ancient Greek. As every Greek scholar will point out, the natural meaning of the dative form babylôni is “for Babylon.” It is an exact, literal translation of the original Hebrew lebâbel, which definitely means “for Babel” in this text. True, at Jeremiah 29:22 (LXX 36:22) the dative form babylôni is used in the local sense, “in Babel,” but it gets this sense only because of the preceding Greek preposition en, “in”:

And from them a malediction will certainly be taken on the part of the entire body of exiles of Judah that is in Babylon (en babylôni)

Furuli further refers to the rendering of the Latin Vulgate, in Babylon, which means, as he correctly explains, “in Babylon.” This translation most probably influenced the KJV of 1611, which in turn has influenced several other earlier translations. The point is that all translations derived from or influenced by the Vulgate, such as the KJV, are not independent sources

===========================================The seventy years "for Babylon" "The sense of the Hebrew original might even be rendered thus: ‘After seventy years of (the rule of) Babylon are accomplished etc.’ The seventy years counted here evidently refer to Babylon and not to the Judeans or to their captivity. They mean seventy years of Babylonian rule, the end of which will see the redemption of the exiles"—Dr. Avigdor On, "The seventy years of Babylon," Vetus Testamentum, Vol. VI (1956), p. 305.

"It is appropriate to begin with the passages of Jeremiah and to observe, with On, that the references in Jer. 25:11-12 and 29:10—whether original to the passages or not—are to a period of seventy years of Babylonian rule, and not to a period of seventy years of actual captivity"—Dr. Peter R. Ackroyd, "Two Old Testament historical problems of the early Persian period," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVII (1958), p. 23.

"Certainly it must be stressed that the seventy years refer primarily to the time of Babylonian world dominion and not to the time of the exile, as is often carelessly supposed. As an estimate of Babylon’s domination of the ancient Near East it was a remarkably accurate figure, for from the Battle of Carchemish (605) to the fall of Babylon to Cyrus (539) was sixty-six years"—Professor Norman K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth (New York, Evanston, London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964), pp. 265, 266.

"It has often been pointed out that the textually unobjectionable verse with its seventy years does not have in view the length of the exile , but rather the duration of the Babylonian dominion, which from its beginning until the Persian conquest of Babylon may be calculated to about seven decades. "—Dr. Otto Plöger, Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), p. 68. (Translated from the German.)

It would be easy to add many other similar statements by Hebrew scholars, but it may suffice here to quote Professor Ernst Jenni at Basel, Switzerland. This leading authority on le (footnote 26 above) says:

The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is “for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context. By the “local meaning” a distinction is to be made between where? (in, at) and where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic meaning of l is with reference to, and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g. Num. 11, 10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] “at the entrance”, cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151).

On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative (”for Babylon”). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone, “in Babylon”, thus King James Version “at Babylon”, and so probably also the New World Translation.—Letter Jenni-Jonsson, October 1, 2003. (Emphasis added.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I QUESS YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT MOST TRANSLATIONS UNLESS IT IS KJV OR NWT ALSO ARE WRONG WHEN THEY USED "FOR" AND NOT "IN".

New International VersionThis is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place.

English Standard Version“For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

New American Standard Bible "For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.

American Standard VersionFor thus saith Jehovah, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You said "Here it is again, which you didn't even address:

Also the 3.b. meaning given in the BDB (Brown, Driver and Briggs) lexicon, found on page 454, is this: "of time, about, as, whether of the past or of the future."

One example given there is Gen. 19:17 where it suggests the rendering of "AS THEY WERE BRINGING THEM FORTH" which clearly indicates an incomplete action, not one that had been completed but well along in progress.

Genesis 19:17 is the same construction as Jeremiah 25:12 where KAPH is followed by an infinitive verb, and it clearly shows that it could refer to an action NEARLY completed but not finished. In other words, it was ABOUT done, but not complete, and that is exactly what I have been saying.

The Inifinitve construct can show continuing action as this reference from Blueletterbible will show.1a) Infinitive Construct is used as a verbal noun corresponding to the English verbal noun ending in "-ing".

“Ing” shows continuing action, not completion. Therefore, Jeremiah 25:12 could be referring to an action not yet completed according to the KAPH followed by the infinitive verb construction.

You have not presented a "rule" otherwise, as you have claimed++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Unless you are not reading I have answered that clearly. You following Watchtower tactics do not give the entire quotes, so people can fall in the trap. You only give partial quotes not the entire quote which I am putting below.

#9008 כְּ or כִּ or כַּprefix, particle of comparison, similarity or proportion;

before Sheva, with article - as, like, as if; at, about [a time], according to, after;

before an infinitive - as, when, if, after.

THE ONLY TIME A VERB CAN HAVE THE ING ENDING IF IT IS NOT IN "ABSOLUTE" FORM. BUT, JEREMIAH 25:12 IS SO AGAIN YOU CANNOT INTRODUCE THE ING ENDING AS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHOWS. AT LEAST WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS,SINCE YOU CANNOT IMPOSE A "ABOUT" READING IN THE TEXT. NOW YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THE "ING" ENDING WHICH IS ANOTHER MISTAKE AS I SHOW IT BELOW. I CAN SEE YOU CARELESS ABOUT THE TRUTH JUST TO BE RIGHT, BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS CLEAR IT IS NOT THE SAME CONSTRUCT. I WILL EVEN SEND THIS QUESTION TO MY HEBRAIST FRIEND AND WILL POST HIS ANSWER.

I HOPE YOU READ IT.

There are two forms of the infinitive:

1a) Infinitive Construct is used as a verbal noun corresponding to the English verbal noun ending in "-ing"

1a1) as subject to keep the judgments to seek thy heart

1a2) as object in his "writing" he spoke, "saying"

1b) The Infinitive Absolute does not allow prefixes or suffixes - READ HERE I HOPE IS CLEAR.

1b1) Used with a verb to emphasize the verbal idea. This is often rendered by an English adverb , such as, "surely", "utterly".

he will surely visit you he utterly destroyed the people

1b2) It may be used by itself with the value of a finite form of the verb, especially an imperative.

remember the sabbath day

You and the Watchtower can add anything you want, but an absolute verb cannot, do not allow prefixes.

According to what BDB says, I have demonstrated that in Gen. 19:17, the grammatical contruction allows for the rendering of incomplete action. You claim that Genesis 19:17 and Jeremiah 25:12 have a different construction but you do not show that in any way. They are both examples of where the KAPH is followed by an infifnite verb. Please show me then why Jeremiah 25:12 can't follow the same procedure as Gen. 19:17, backed up by BDB.

You claim no translation renders it as "fulfilling" in the sense of continuous action, yet that again is not true. Look at the LXX and you will see what you claim does not exist.

1471 [e]hag·gō·wהַגּ֨וֹיnation - Noun +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++HOW YOU CAN INTRODUCE A CONTINUING ACTION WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HEBREW IS RIDICULOUS. NOT EVEN THE WATCHTOWER TRANSLTATES IT IN SUCH A RIDICULOUS MANNER. THE PRECEDDING VERB "COME TO PASS" GIVE IT A COMPLETE ACTION TO THE FOLLOWING VERB. UNLESS YOU WANT TO SAY "IT SHOULD COME TO PASS WHEN THE 70 YEARS ARE PASSING" UHG REALLY? THAT WOULD BE A CONTRADICTION TO THE TEXT. EITHER WAY I HAVE SENT THAT QUESTION TO A GENTLEMAN I KNOW THAT HOLDS HIGHER EDUCATION DEGREES IN HEBREW.

One question first. Since you claim that the word "fulfill" at Jeremiah 25:12 is an infinitive absolute, why then did the LXX treat it as just an infinitive, as I showed you, it rendered it "fulfilling"?

Why did they render it that way if it was an infinitive absolute?

JEREMIAH 29:10

Also, you cooked your own goose with one of your own references. Notice what it said:

You points out that “the Septuagint has the dative form babylôni” but with “the most natural meaning being ‘at Babylon’.” The statement reveals a surprising ignorance of ancient Greek. As every Greek scholar will point out, the natural meaning of the dative form babylôni is “for Babylon.” It is an exact, literal translation of the original Hebrew lebâbel, which definitely means “for Babel” in this text. True, at Jeremiah 29:22 (LXX 36:22) the dative form babylôni is used in the local sense, “in Babel,” but it gets this sense only because of the preceding Greek preposition en, “in”:

The important piece of that quote is this here: True, at Jeremiah 29:22 (LXX 36:22) the dative form babylôni is used in the local sense, “in Babel,” but it gets this sense only because of the preceding Greek preposition en, “in”:

So they admit that if the Greek word EN precedes the Dative Babylon, it means IN and not FOR.

As I have shown you, that's exactly what we have at Jeremiah 29:10, too. The dative Babylon is preceded by the Greek word EN, therefore, at the mouth of your own source, it means IN not FOR.

You said the following: One question first. Since you claim that the word "fulfill" at Jeremiah 25:12 is an infinitive absolute, why then did the LXX treat it as just an infinitive, as I showed you, it rendered it "fulfilling"?+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++DID YOU REALLY READ WHAT I SENT YOU NO THEY DID NOT WOW I THINK I AM GOING TO START DRINKING. THE VERB FORM IS NOT FULFILLING AND I GAVE "EXACT" I HOPE YOU KNOW WHAT "EXACT EXAMPLE" OF THE EXACT VERB STRUCTURE MEANS WHICH IT IS NOT FULFILING AT ALL. I HOPE YOU ARE HONEST, BECAUSE SOMETIMES I THINK YOU ARE JUST MAKING THINGS UP.

The previous example is the LXX hhahahahahahahahahah what are you missing?

πληρωθῆναι this is the actual verb structure you cannot compare it to something else?Verbπληρόω (πληρ(ο)-, πληρω•σ-, πληρω•σ-, πεπληρω•κ-, πεπληρω-, πληρω•θ-) Yes, this are other verb structures, but it is not the one found in the text we are looking at.πληρω•θηναιaor θη infto fill fill, fulfill to-be-FILL-ed

TO BE FILLED AS IN LUKE 24:44,( πληρωθῆναι to be fulfilled) ACTS 1:16 (πληρωθῆναι to have been fulfilled)

If you don't read my postings I will start getting sarcastic, I hope you don't get mad it is only fair I do it to my best Friends hahahah just kidding.

YOU HAVE TO COMPARE SAME VERB STRUCTURE. I DONT MAKE ONE UP LIKE YOU. This is getting to be fun, I don't think you spend anytime reading what I post hahahahahahahahah.

What you need to do is to look at the literal word for word rendition of the Greek to English. What you have been looking at is just giving the root meaning without any parsing involved when it renders the English. Go to this website here and download the free PDF of an interlinear LXX. It's very handy and obviously something you need to see for yourself.

Πληρωθηναι is the verb form they used to translate from the Hebrew in Jeremiah 25:12.

LXX other places where the exact verb form is translated as it appears in Jeremiah 25;12:

2 Chronicles 36:21 to fulfill the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths: for as long as it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years

2 Chronicles 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying

How was it translated in the new Testament?

Luke 24:44He said to them, “This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me must be fulfilled

Acts 1:16 it was necessary that this Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to those who took Jesus

NONE TRANSLATES THE WORD AS “FULFILING” JUST LIKE IT IS NOT IN JEREMIAH 25:12.

First, you were caught in the misinformation that it took the transitory meaning of “about” due to the Hebrew prefix. When I showed you that was not possible, because it was followed by an infinitive, then now you switched to the ING ending. Can you admit at least once you are wrong?

The above verses are not exact, since they are not referring to a specific period, but it shows the verb does not take an ING ending as in fulfilling.

The Watchtower implies that 2 Kings Chapter 25 to imply that years of Jewish exile were counted from when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. However, Ezekiel 40:1 indicates that the Jews regarded the exile as having begun eleven years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and Jeremiah 29:1–10 indicates that the seventy years did not begin at some time later than that exile. Jeremiah 52:28–30 concurs that the prior exile was more significant. (Note that Jeremiah 52:28–30 are an interpolation from Babylonian sources which do not include accession years, explaining why they refer to 7th and 18th years rather than the years referred to elsewhere in Jeremiah.) Additionally, Jeremiah 52:30 indicates a later exile of Jews in Nebuchadnezzar’s 23rd year (582 BCE).

Ezequiel 40:40 In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the fall of the city—on that very day the hand of the Lord was on me and he took me there.

According to what BDB says, I have demonstrated that in Gen. 19:17, the grammatical contruction allows for the rendering of incomplete action. You claim that Genesis 19:17 and Jeremiah 25:12 have a different construction but you do not show that in any way. They are both examples of where the KAPH is followed by an infifnite verb. Please show me then why Jeremiah 25:12 can't follow the same procedure as Gen. 19:17, backed up by BDB.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I sent the question to two persons that do speak and know Biblical Hebrew. These are their responses up to now.

The short answer for now is the following: "English Grammar has nothing to do with Biblical Hebrew. The mistake Westerners make is trying to understand Hebrew in English. I don't have time until next week to give you a long answer".

The other response was "Both verses use the infinitive verb, but that really does not mean a whole lot in Hebrew. Hebrew grammar rules are more suggestions than rules and are filled with exceptions. If this person is trying to teach that the 70 years have not ended, then he is basically ignoring the Bible. As to the Word used in Jeremiah 25:12, this exact same word is used 17 times in the OT. Here are a few examples Num 7:86, Deut 6:11, Ezeq 1:18, Dan 10:3. There are a bunch of other places, but none of them permit a translation that expresses something ongoing"

Let me assure that I have not dropped the "about" explanation. Maybe it is the fact that English is your second language that you are not understanding this.

It was BDB who tied the ING ending together with the ABOUT definition. I gave you the page number. Did you look it up? It's the same argument , Heber, certainly not two different ones.

As is shown by your own information, the word "fulfill" at Jeremiah 25:12, in the LXX is in the aorist infinitive construct. I am sure you will agree that what ever the Hebrew construct is, the LXX did its best to reflect the proper understanding of it, right? Well, they rendered it into the aorist infinitive. I am also glad that your Hebrew speaking friend corrected you on the idea that this is not an infinitive absolute. At least I dont have to keep belaboring that point.

How is the aorist infinitive rendered elsewhere? How is it to be understood?

I have in front of me the "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics" by Daniel B. Wallace and it gives examples of how the infinitive is used in the NT. It is found on page 594 and 595 under the topic of Infinitive adverbial (time). Please take time to look it up and check it out. Any library should be able to get you a copy if you do not have one. It is a popular Greek Grammar these days.

Please take note that the examples I am sharing are exactly like the LXX structure at Jeremiah 25:12 which is "en to + infinitive".

Luke 17:11And it came to pass , as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.

Kai egeneto en tw' porenesthai ei Ierousalhm And it came to pass AS HE WENT to Jerusalem

Did you notice that this AS HE WENT, is the same aorist infinitive construction as the LXX at Jeremiah 25:12 and it was rendered in a fashion that demonstrates that the action was not yet completed. Well in progress, but not finished, or one could say, "ABOUT" finished.

So, please note this to yourself and to your Hebrew friends that the aorist infinitive can be rendered in this fashion. There are other examples of this happening which I will show below. Keep in mind again, I feel the need to repeat myself, that this is the exact same construct as found at Jer. 25:12 in the LXX.

Here are some other aorist infinitives used to demonstrate an action NOT YET COMPLETE.

Luke 11:37

And AS HE SPAKE, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him.

Please note that AS HE SPAKE is another aorist infinitive and it shows that the action was not completely done yet.

Acts 11:15 "AND AS I BEGAN to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.

AND AS I BEGAN is another aorist infinitive showing the action was not complete but still in progress.

Heb 3: 15 while it is said, " TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME."

WHILE IT IS SAID is another aorist infinitive demonstrating an action in progress not completed.

I hope these examples are enough to suffice that the point about the Hebrew KAPH and the LXX aorist infinitive, found at Jeremiah 25:12, can be used to show an action not yet completed when it was spoken.

But there is more, which I mentioned at the very first which you did not address.

Since the punishment mentioned in Jeremiah 25:12ff did not happen to Babylon until centuries later, what exactly does that prove for you? Even if you INSIST that the verse means AFTER the 70 years the king and Babylon would be punished, the punishment that was mentioned did not happen for centuries. How would that then prove any thing for you?

Are you now applying Greek Grammar on Hebrew? Do we have Aorist Infinitive in Hebrew? None of those are replicas of the same verb. I already gave you examples and nowhere is translated in that way. So, you can bring other verbs it makes no difference. Give me an example of the same verb been used in that way.

wow the punishment did not happen until Centuries later? So, that proves what? I think the prophecy is clear I will punish the King of Babylon "when the 70 years are over" not all the punishment predicted had to happen in one day that is ridiculous and I will let people be the judge. It only needed to start that is all to show the period was over done with. Or did the 70 years continued for Centuries after that? that is ridiculous argument. Why did the 70 years ended in 537 BCE, since the punishment for Babylon was not over yet? It should have continued then according to you.

You can bring all this quotes out of context that no one even pays attention to, because no one translates it as you say not even the Watchtower. So, why waste my time.

You have no problem ending that period in 537 BCE in relation to the exiles returning when the prophecy was not directly related to them, but to Babylon. Again, why did it end in 537 BCE, if according to you all the prophecy against Babylon had not ended? Which of course is not what the prophecy says. The prophecy does not say and all of this will happen in one day it actually separates the two.

Jeremiah 25:12 When the 70 years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation’—this is the Lord’s declaration—‘the land of the Chaldeans, for their guilt,

second

and I will make it a ruin forever". This was the sequence, but not that it would happen overnight.

God did bring punishment over the king and the nation in 539 BCE or what was it?

The final authority for you is the NWT Jeremiah 25:12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will

I guess if I tell you, did the News ended and I respond "the news have been fulfilled" or "are over" as other translation say it, it really means "not at all they are still playing". Now, that is ridiculous.

As far as your grammar I disagree as do the Watchtower and any reputable translator, so I am not really going to argue this anymore.

Of course the LXX rendered it correctly and it is nowhere how you explain it the following was my previous explanation which you ignored and go back in circle with verses that do not have the same verb form:

Πληρωθηναι is the verb form they used to translate from the Hebrew in Jeremiah 25:12. The LXX did not translated it "fulfilling".

LXX other places where the exact verb form is translated as it appears in Jeremiah 25;12 and nowhere is fulfilling. If someone has translated it that way then they are mistranslating the Hebrew and the Greek.

2 Chronicles 36:21 to fulfill the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths: for as long as it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years

2 Chronicles 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying

How was it translated in the new Testament?

Luke 24:44He said to them, “This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me must be fulfilled

Acts 1:16 it was necessary that this Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to those who took Jesus

NONE TRANSLATES THE WORD AS “FULFILING” JUST LIKE IT IS NOT IN JEREMIAH 25:12.

First, you were caught in the misinformation that it took the transitory meaning of “about” due to the Hebrew prefix. When I showed you that was not possible, because it was followed by an infinitive, then now you switched to the ING ending. Can you admit at least once you are wrong?

The above verses are not exact, since they are not referring to a specific period, but it shows the verb does not take an ING ending as in fulfilling.hperez Posts: 79Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:16 am

Of course the LXX rendered it correctly and it is nowhere how you explain it the following was my previous explanation which you ignored and go back in circle with verses that do not have the same verb form:

The verb form is in the aorist tense and it is an infinitive. As I said before, the grammatical setup for that is "en to +inifinitive" in the Greek. I will show you below exactly where that occurs in the LXX. You had the wrong word highlighted when you thought my root was off.

Remember, it doesn't matter what the actual verb is, what matters is the grammatical construction and how that grammatical construction can be rendered.

Do you see the "en to + aorist infinitive" verb in the Greek? It's right there in plain sight.

Now, how can this aorist infinitive construct be rendered? That is the all important question.

Did you download the copy of the LXX that I told you to download? You are not going to see the correct parsing without it. So please do that or you will not see where the literal word-for-word rendering in that LXX was "in the fulfillING" as I have said. Don't say it isn't there until you look at it.

But even if you did not download, or refuse to, or whatever, we can look at examples in the Christian Greek Scriptures of how aorist infinitives are rendered when they employ the SAME SYNTAX of "en to + aorist infinitive".

Again, it doesn't matter what verb is used, what matters is the grammatical construct and how it CAN be rendered. I am not saying it MUST be that way. What I am talking about and demonstrating are the POSSIBILITIES that exist with that type of construct. And as I said, that LXX that I asked you to download proves that word-for-word, they saw the same POSSIBILITY that I am speaking of.

Just to be sure you see this I am going to attach a picture of that portion of the LXX below so you can see exactly what I am talking about.

I see your examples and all they show is how the translator chose to render the phrase, it does not tell us anything about the grammatical possibilities except that it is possible to render it that way. It does not RULE OUT other renditions that obey the other possibilities of that particular construction.

Now, as far as the examples in the Christian Greek SCriptures, I will repeat them here again because they defintely show HOW the aorist infinitive can be rendered. YOU could put ANY aorist infinitive verb into that construct and get the same result, whether or not that is how the translator chose to do it is beside the point. It is the POSSIBILITIES that we are dealing with, and the rendition of "in the fulfillING" is indeed a possibility according to the LXX (see attachment).

I have in front of me the "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics" by Daniel B. Wallace and it gives examples of how the infinitive is used in the NT. It is found on page 594 and 595 under the topic of Infinitive adverbial (time). Please take time to look it up and check it out. Any library should be able to get you a copy if you do not have one. It is a popular Greek Grammar these days.

Please take note that the examples I am sharing are exactly like the LXX structure at Jeremiah 25:12 which is "en to + infinitive".

Luke 17:11And it came to pass , as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.

Kai egeneto en tw' porenesthai ei Ierousalhm And it came to pass AS HE WENT to Jerusalem

Did you notice that this AS HE WENT, is the same aorist infinitive construction as the LXX at Jeremiah 25:12 and it was rendered in a fashion that demonstrates that the action was not yet completed. Well in progress, but not finished, or one could say, "ABOUT" finished.

So, please note this to yourself and to your Hebrew friends that the aorist infinitive can be rendered in this fashion. There are other examples of this happening which I will show below. Keep in mind again, I feel the need to repeat myself, that this is the exact same construct as found at Jer. 25:12 in the LXX.

Here are some other aorist infinitives used to demonstrate an action NOT YET COMPLETE.

Luke 11:37

And AS HE SPAKE, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him.

Please note that AS HE SPAKE is another aorist infinitive and it shows that the action was not completely done yet.

Acts 11:15 "AND AS I BEGAN to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.

AND AS I BEGAN is another aorist infinitive showing the action was not complete but still in progress.

Heb 3: 15 while it is said, " TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME."

WHILE IT IS SAID is another aorist infinitive demonstrating an action in progress not completed.

I hope these examples are enough to suffice that the point about the Hebrew KAPH and the LXX aorist infinitive, found at Jeremiah 25:12, can be used to show an action not yet completed when it was spoken.

AGAIN-SEE ATTACHMENT

AND WHAT ABOUT THIS POINT? YOU KEEP AVOIDING IT!

Since the punishment mentioned in Jeremiah 25:12ff did not happen to Babylon until centuries later, what exactly does that prove for you? Even if you INSIST that the verse means AFTER the 70 years the king and Babylon would be punished, the punishment that was mentioned did not happen for centuries. How would that then prove any thing for you?

Since the punishment mentioned in Jeremiah 25:12ff did not happen to Babylon until centuries later, what exactly does that prove for you? Even if you INSIST that the verse means AFTER the 70 years the king and Babylon would be punished, the punishment that was mentioned did not happen for centuries. How would that then prove any thing for you?+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++What was the punishment that the King of Babylon and the nation had to suffer?

I thought the Bible said something about the King of Persia doing such punishment or did I read that wrong? I am sorry, but you simply don't want to see the truth and are stuck in a circle.

As far as your example they are not parallels so you can continue to make comparison which will confuse most people as the Watchtower knows how to relate different passages and make it sound like they are the same. I already gave you how the LXX translation does not say "fulfilling'

What was the punishment that the King of Babylon and the nation had to suffer?

I thought the Bible said something about the King of Persia doing such punishment or did I read that wrong? I am sorry, but you simply don't want to see the truth and are stuck in a circle.

The punishment is spelled out right there in the verse itself. The perpetual desolation of Babylon did not happen until centuries later, so how does this verse prove anything for your side?

As far as your example they are not parallels so you can continue to make comparison which will confuse most people as the Watchtower knows how to relate different passages and make it sound like they are the same. I already gave you how the LXX translation does not say "fulfilling'

[/quote]

I don't mind when people do not understand a certain concept but when thye fly in the face of facts (facts that I have clkearly demonstrated) then that is simply selective blindness. If you can;t overturn the evidence that I have presented, then it stands as unrefuted. Either way, Jeremiah 25:12 does nothing for the 587 BCE camp, nor does Daniel 9:1,2 and Jer. 29:10 as I have effectively shown.